Fine. If this country was suddenly deluged with a spate of suicide bombers who wore their dynamite vests under coats not plainly observable to the naked eye, and all the people caught with the vests or identified after they blew themselves (and possibly scores of other people) up were determined to be of swarthy-looking-middle-eastern ancestry, would you support stop and frisk on those individuals?
Looks to me like stop and frisk doesn’t drive people out of the cities. Letting the urban ferals run rampant does drive the slightly less feral out of the city and into my neighborhood.
The simple fact is that urban areas have always been places of crime and violence and communities have always responded to those issues in their own way.
Meanwhile I live in a very low crime area where we might see a cop once a month. Laws, ordinances and policies are very much the result of local society and if people create a zoo, they should expect to be treated like apes.
Are you arguing for an all out police state? Which of your rights are you going to forfeit to feel "safe" in our dangerous world?
Better yet, why do we have only all or nothing choices? Do you think I'm saying do nothing at all, when I say they're doing too much?
If you're taking away rights, then you seem to be declaring some form of martial law. This may be what is required for many places, like NYC or Detroit, just as curfew laws may be justified in some cases.
Has police work changed such that there aren't ways to protect the many without violating the rights of all?
With government intercourse, I see us doing better with less "protection" than more.